Tribunals Ontario
Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario
Assessment Review Board
Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière
ISSUE DATE: January 19, 2023
Assessed Person(s): Bell Canada
Appellant(s): Bell Canada
Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 09
Respondent(s): City of Toronto
Property Location(s): 11 Asquith Avenue
Municipality(ies): City of Toronto
Roll Number(s): 1904-101-010-01000-0000
Appeal Number(s): 3288598, 3320302, 3353000, 3399136, 3441399 and 3486863
Taxation Year(s): 2017 - 2022
Hearing Event No.: 773779
Legislative Authority: Section 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
Bell Canada
Richard Minster and Daniel Rosman
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation
Melissa VanBerkum
City of Toronto
No one appeared
HEARD: September 14 - 16, 2022 by video conference
ADJUDICATOR(S): Dan Weagant, Member
DECISION
OVERVIEW
1For the 2017 through 2022 taxation years, the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) returned an assessment of the property at 11 Asquith Street (“subject property”) of $33,368,000.
2Bell Canada (“Appellant”) believed this assessment was too high and filed an appeal.
3The original 2017 appeal filed by the Appellant has been deemed to apply to the 2018 through 2022 taxation years in accordance with s. 40(26) of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (the “Act”).
4In response to the Appellant’s appeal, MPAC determined that the returned assessment was too low and filed a notice of increased assessment in the amount of $48,278,000, based on the income approach to value.
5The Appellant believes the correct current value is $13,876,000, based on the cost approach to value.
6While the parties agree that the current value determined requires a reduction to reflect equitable assessment, they disagree on the amount of that reduction.
Background
7The subject property was constructed in the 1920’s. It was originally constructed to house a switching facility that services a portion of the downtown Toronto area. That switching function has continued since the construction of the subject structure.
8Over the decades the specific methods of the signal switching process has changed, but the outcome is the same in that signals that enter the building, either through copper wire or fiber optic cable, are connected to the intended receiver of the signal.
9Originally, this process involved what we would now call land line telephones; the signals from which would be ‘switched’ or connected to the intended receiver of that signal. That process occurred at the subject site and originally the function was completed by physically connecting one cable to another. The process was historically done by operators, stationed at switchboards.
10Over time the process of switching signals has continued but today the process is entirely automated. The people who historically performed the switching function have been replaced by computers. Currently, three